Summary reviews: where are we now?

The summary review process has its merits as a way of dealing with particularly problematic premises but should be reserved for its original purpose, argues Paddy Whur.

Summary reviews were introduced into the Police Licensing Enforcement Officer’s toolkit as a result of the Violent Crime Reduction Act in October 2007. They were not part of the Licensing Act when it became effective in 2005 and were introduced as a measure to deal with the worst of problem premises. Initially there was a slow take-up for the use of these radical powers but they have become increasingly popular, albeit sometimes abused.

They are an impressive tool to deal with the most serious of problem premises quickly, where there is a need for intervention. However we are still seeing a careless use of this tool on a regular basis.

Recently we have had cases where we have acted for an operator and the procedure to commence the summary review was not complied with. We were not popular in arguing the point in front of the licensing committee and there was a reluctance on their behalf in agreeing to our legal submissions and making a finding that the process was flawed and therefore illegal. We immediately sat down with the police officers and representatives of the premises after the finding by the Committee and agreed a course of action in relation to the running of the premises that would lead to promotion of the licensing objectives.

There was no need to re-launch the summary review process. What is concerning here is that this agreement was reached with the operator without problem as soon as it was suggested. It could have been reached earlier without the need for a summary review to achieve this and therefore the wasted costs to the local authority, police and the operator could have been saved. A little bit of forethought and engaging the operator in discussion prior to a kneejerk summary review is often beneficial to all parties.

We have seen this recently with cases where premises have had a blemish free track record and summary reviews were launched on the back of an individual serious offence. On two occasions, we have argued for operators that these were not indicative of systemic management problems, but were incidents that could have happened anywhere. In both of these cases committees agreed and were somewhat surprised that the summary review route had been used. It is clearly a very useful tool but should be reserved for the purpose for which it was brought into the licensing regime.

What we have also seen is the use of summary reviews against premises which have already had their licences revoked at standard reviews and are awaiting appeals against those decisions. On both of the occasions that we have been involved in this scenario recently the information used to bring about the summary review predated the determination of the revocation at the standard review. On both of those occasions the police officers were seeking that the premises licence should be suspended at the interim steps and the licensing authority quite rightly said there was nothing before them to trigger such action, as the information predated the standard review determination. Notwithstanding this as the process had started the cases had to go to a full review hearing. We were acting for residents groups in these cases and it was exceptionally difficult to explain the process to them and persuade them to attend another all day contested hearing to ask for another revocation which would not have immediate effect!! Still very important for the appeals which would be coming up. It is therefore important to be very thoughtful about how and when to use these powers.

Another interesting point which has recently been argued in front of a District Judge is whether the interim steps ordered in a summary review die at the determination of the final review. In the case of Chief Constable of Cheshire v Gary Oates on 19 December 2011 the matter came before District Judge Knight sitting at Halton Magistrates’ Court.

Cheshire Police applied for a summary review of the premises licence for a nightclub and Halton Borough Council suspended the licence at the interim steps and at the final review hearing suspended the licence for three months. The licensee appealed. Both parties agreed that the final order of suspension did not come into effect until the appeal was disposed of (section 53C(11) Licensing Act 2003).

The issue of whether the interim steps continued to have effect during the appeal proceedings came before the Magistrates Court due to Closure Order Proceedings under the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001.

The Police argued as there had been an order for suspension on three occasions - interim steps, representations against the interim steps and at the final review - the statute clearly contemplated that the suspension should endure through to the end of the appeal proceedings.

The District Judge rejected that argument, holding that the interim steps had ceased to be effective once the final determination had been made. Section 53B is expressly entitled “interim steps pending review”, while section 53B(1) makes it clear that interim steps are steps pending the determination of the review applied for. The only provision that could possibly prolong the life of such steps is section 53C(2)(c).

This is a significant development and goes against the DCMS guidance on Summary Reviews. We wait to see if this matter goes forward to the High Court for further judicial scrutiny. Remember at the moment that this is only a persuasive authority and not binding on other authorities/courts, but it is hoped by all that the High Court gives us certainty on the point.

Paddy Woods is a partner at Woods Whur. He can be contacted on 0113 234 3055 or by email at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..